User talk:PBOTs
Feature Request and Discussion Mission List per Location in progress :Categorizing missions by location (this could get a bit time-consuming to implement, so treat this as more of a question than a firm request for now) :It would be great if we could show a list of missions (or a link to a category showing these) to our city pages, so you can see at first glance what missions are available or relevant in a certain port. Other than editing each mission page manually, how could this be done? :The problem here is, a mission can have any number of locations associated with it, so the same method we used for nation (nation, nation2, nation3,...) doesn't work. Can you make a Bot run that checks the parameter for all known port names and adds the corresponding category to it? So if contains for example Rosignol, a Category:Rosignol Missions gets added to the article? There doesn't seem to be a substring template parser function (I had a look at the Meta-Wiki), so I don't see a way to easily add this to the template code itself... :For all new mission articles after such a Bot run, we could either except everyone to add these location categories manually, or you might have to repeat the run from time to time --Ailar 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) :: The bot runs in PHP and thus has a wide array of functions available. It could inspect all the missions, note all cities and then generate a /missions subarticle for each city with links to all the missions in it. We simply include the /missions subarticle into the main article (which I think is better than creating an category for every city). We make a routine of this that we run every now and then. Detecting cities will be easy: we simply look for [[city]] wikilinks in the field. I'll see if I can make some time to start working on this. If I got this working it wouldn't be much trouble to do the same for NPCs. --Lord Alderaan 12:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC) ::: I made a big mistake and used \ instead of / for the sub-articles. This will be fixed in the next run. Which I will do when more missions are added or when I get suggestions for changes/additions to the current setup. --Lord Alderaan 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Looks great so far anyway, I already noticed it when I was tinkering around with the missions a bit earlier. Just what I had in mind (now if we could get an updated list of mission levels from the Devs, that would be great. I found one, but that's from Beta - that's another issue though and doesn't belong here...). Thanks! --Ailar 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) We could do with a new run of this routine. There's loads of new missions since the last time it was started. Thanks :) --Ailar 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC) : I think we could re-organise this routine so it doesn't need to be run that often (ideally, only once more, and after that it would be easy to maintain the mission listings manually). The mission list can be inserted into a city article by a simple SMW query - see here as an example: User:Ailar/Sandbox#Missions. :: The change to the Bot routine we'd need for this: we need to get the is located in::... property into every mission article (hard to do manually, since we're approaching 600 of them already). So, the main task of the routine would stay the same - scan the mission articles for city names. Only then, instead of generating a City/Missions page with that information, it would have to insert a is located in::City Name into the mission article for each city it found (note the pipe character and the blank after it. We want these entries to be invisible). Once we have that, the queries which I'd insert into every city article would do the rest. What do you think? --Ailar 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ::: Sounds good. Making the run as you suggested it isn't much of a problem and I'll make it as soon as we have the query. Could the SMW query be made in the template or do you have to add one to each city? --Lord Alderaan 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, I guess you'd have to insert it into Cityname/Missions, instead of the table, as happens now. It's quite short, too: | Level | sort=is level }} ::::This'll retrieve the mission list (i.e. every mission that has one or more is located in properties defined), the mission level (I changed the mission template to set that property automatically), and sort it by level (although the table is sortable anyway).--Ailar 15:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) :::::I've added that query to the city template and it seems to work. Now I'll work on updating all the missions properly using a bot run. It shouldn't take me more then a day to write and execute the run. Btw we can delete all the city/Missions pages since they are no longer needed. --Lord Alderaan 15:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::Looks good - thanks! This'll be much easier to maintain. --Ailar 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) :::::::Ok. Finally I have gone through the trouble of doing this. I had to deal with UTF issues, pattern match issues (I was matching on | and then borking it by using Pirates, etc, etc, etc. I think I've just started the final run and its gonna take a LONG time (couple of hours). In any case I saw you were adding the 'is located in' tags to the location field of the template so the run is replacing all |location fields with a auto-generated one. It might remove some minor details (from for example in the Junk Merchant missions where it states 'in the action house of:' but this is pretty much redundant anyway) and when I run it again it'll revert any changes made by users. But it should work. I hope it doesn't bork too much and what it borks should be easily reparable. --Lord Alderaan 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Ship Deeds completed *I recommend creating separate pages for the ship deeds as an intermediary between recipe output links and actual ships. That way, ship deeds used in other recipes, such as how the 'Mordaunt' Fourth Rate deed can be used to make a 'Mordaunt' Sleek Fourth Rate, can be linked in the same style as other recipe ingredients. I recommend this as a bot process because it would be simple for a bot to go through and create "Deed: shipname" pages and create the links from the recipes to these pages and these pages to their actual ships. I also would like to see convenient list of ship deeds that can be upgraded, perhaps as a category. This would be great especially for those people who create ships and want to be able to make a single run of ships, and still get multiple benefit out of it. I personally made a run of 'Stralsund' Frigates and used one of my spare deeds to create a 'Stralsund' Mastercraft Frigate when I reached that level. Reillan 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC) ** About the deeds thing. I'd simply reason the Ships articles are about the deeds. Just like Consumables show the effect you get when you use them, the Ship articles show the ship you can sail when you consume the deed. I wasn't involved in the recipe creation and see that variants refer to the recipes of the core ship but I'd simply refer to the ship article. It has a 'Produced by' line just like other products of the economy. Why make a pretty much 1-on-1 copy of the Ship articles and place 'deed' behind it? You can use ship deed name in the variant recipes, or we could make redirects so you can use ship deed name and then when people click the link it will say Redirected from ship deed name at the top of the page which should explain there being only one article sufficiently. What do you think? --Lord Alderaan 08:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ** The convenient-list-of-ships-that-can-be-upgraded-idea I really like. But I'd consider listing the variants in the articles. So in each of the Stralsund Frigate articles you could see the other Stralsund Frigates that there are. Just like we have a Comparable section we simply make a Variants section. Would that also fit with your idea? --Lord Alderaan 08:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) *** Yes, that would work. Important thing is that there is a "used in" line in the ship's page to say that the ship's deed is used in the recipe for another ship. Reillan 13:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) **** So a Variants section would actually cover both of your suggestions properly? I'm gonna put it as a automation on the userpage and start making work of it. --Lord Alderaan 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ***** Done --Lord Alderaan 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ****** Also, while that is an excellent resource so far, one thing it's currently missing is refit ships, ie the 'Lancer' Naval Cutter, which is basically a variant of the 'Mediator' Cutter. Thoughts? Reillan 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ******* Yeah I see those are missing. Might be a good idea to add them manually cos I simply worked with the bit between the 's in a ship name right now, there wasn't any other proper logic I could use (recipes were lacking). So I wrote the variant adder as a single run thing. Not a routine. We should now keep it updated ourselves. Considering new ships are rare, let alone new variants, we should be able to keep this up to date manually without too much effort. Especially since we are gonna add the refits manually :P --Lord Alderaan 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ******** Fair enough. In my spare time (hah) I'll work on adding those. Reillan 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Ship Variants suggestion *Can we also automate putting the variants into pages for those variants? I've created an example on the Courier page. Reillan 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) *Or, perhaps that should be its own single list, like the master list of ships by level, with columns for all of the ship types, level, and class restrictions Reillan 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ** Certainly an interesting idea, both. First one would be pretty easy, the second one would probably be nicer. --Lord Alderaan 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Bot flag completed Hi. Why your bot aint got bot flag? This would help us filter out its edits from RC. -- Nef (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC) : I hadn't looked at the bot flag and its workings yet. I've asked Mopster to enable it because I don't have the permission to do so. --Lord Alderaan 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC) :: I can't either, seems only Wikia staff can do it. --Mopster 08:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) :::Hi, if the community is happy with the bot being flagged, and sure that it's a 'friendly' bot (that is, not one that is going to edit too fast, make lots of errors, or otherwise be naughty ;) then let me know and I'll set the flag -- sannse (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Thanks to Nef the bot is now flagged. I've provided information on the User page that I hope will either ease the concerns or make addressing them easier. --Lord Alderaan 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)